It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Suicide Bomber Shot At Stockwell Tube Station

page: 4
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by xu
ok thanks, Im sure if that guy in the pic had a panic attack before he showed that there is no bomb under his clothes he would be dead by now for sure.

Yea it looks like there is NOTHING under his Jacket - like hes Naked.

Or maybe he is.




posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
A Few Questions...


1. Was the man fleeing Police? (not exactly a good thing for a person in
London to do in the next few weeks, at least)

2. What was he wearing? (What was the weather yesterday?)

3. Was he acting in a suspicious way? (Evading police searches, or security officers)

4. Was he obviously armed?

If 1 or 4 is true, then tough...The act just justified. If 2 or 3 are true, but not one, then this was an unjustified act, warranting no more than seizure for questioning.

My opinion? In a time of high security, if you're running from the police, you're a danger to all of us. Better a unjustifiable death than a mass homocide.

[edit on 7/22/2005 by soulforge]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:50 AM
link   
Maybe the guys listened to his Walkman and was late for his Train?

I was once walking home late at night and was listening to my walkman and I couldnt hear the Police that was Talking to me from the Car that was driving by me on the Road. It was Winter and I had a Scarf and a Hoody on my head and I couldnt see very well sideways. After few meters I finnaly "Saw" them and Stopped.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:54 AM
link   
Okay - now we've got a witness that states he did see a bomb belt and wires.


Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".


news.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
From CNN

""Other witnesses reported three plainclothes policemen chasing the man, who they described as appearing to be of South Asian descent. The man jumped over the ticket barrier in order to get onto the train, they said, and tripped before he was shot.""


From witnesses...

""As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox. He looked absolutely petrified,""

""He looked like a Pakistani but he had a baseball cap on, and quite a thickish coat. It was a coat like you would wear in winter, a sort of padded jacket. It looked out of place in the weather we've been having.""

""The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'Get out, get out""

If this guy was innocent, then he is the 'Darwin Award' winner of the Century.


CX

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:00 AM
link   
I can't see what all the suprise and fuss is over the fact that a suspect suicide bomber has been shot? I joined the british army in 1988 and for the entire duration of my service the rules of engagement stated that if someone was about to cause a threat to life, ie plant or explode an IED you were within your rights to kill them. Yes its all about reasonable force etc etc, but if you suspect that someone may be about to detonate a bomb, you do not want him anything but dead as if he's able to move even slightly it can be enough for him to move and set off the device. I can't vouch for the police rules of engagement, maybe others here will no more than i do on that subject, but i'm sure they are trained to "shoot to kill" and not just injure? Also, i reckon it would have been a good idea for the suspect to stop when challenged and not do a runner, therefore increasing the suspicion tenfold! I am really finding it hard to understand why people are moaning about this.

Whilst i appreciate everyone has an opinion, i'd ask those here who have never been next to a bomb when one goes off to try it before they start shouting "excessive use of force" when a bomber gets shot. Its not nice and its not pretty so if this guy was the real thing, the result has been a good one.

CX.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by CX]



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge

If this guy was innocent, then he is the 'Darwin Award' winner of the Century.


lol

I agree. Let's see, I want to be inconspicuous - let's wear a winter coat in July!



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:03 AM
link   
well, the police have made a real good mess of this...

we have conflicting reports, eyewitnesses stating different things

*sighs*



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by CX
I joined the british army in 1988 and for the entire duration of my service the rules of engagement stated that if someone was about to cause a threat to life, ie plant or explode an IED you were within your rights to kill them.
[edit on 22-7-2005 by CX]


Thanks for this post - you just made me understand what part of this felt really really icky. This was an instance of military rules of engagement in a British civil environment.

Now - before some one gets all miffed about that statement, that's not a jab. That's a point of observation. This instance is an instance of martial law. The only reason we haven't had to see this sad state of affairs here in the U.S. yet is because they haven't started these random suicide bombings. The minute they do - we'll get our own version of the the 21st Century's OK Corral.

We need to invent a Versaid gun - pop a Versaid bullet in the back of their heads where they can't get two more steps before they're in lala land - then we can ask them all the questions we need to when they come out of the coma.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   
i doubt he would have had explosives, shooting him would risk them going on surely? especially five times, that's just plain crazy. that's not shooting to kill...that's shooting to mutilate. i would drive to london, but i'm really unsure about getting public transport on thursdays. at the moment we can thank our lucky stars we're not the exact mirror image of iraq, where people walk in to buildings and blow themselves up, or walk in to a line or queue and blow themselves up. at the moment it seems to be relatively under control, more sniffer dogs on the platforms please.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
well, the police have made a real good mess of this...

we have conflicting reports, eyewitnesses stating different things

*sighs*


You are bound to have conflicting reports no matter where it took place. The angle viewed alone can account for some differance. One thing that does seem to be constant by most accounts is the fact that he jumped a turnstile or ticket barrier as you call them, that alone is a darn good reason to suspect him. Then add in the heavy jacket also another good reason since most people seem to be walking about in short sleeved shirts.

Then you have accounts stating the police warned him, again you have sufficient reason to use force.

London Police update expected within an hour, so we may know more in the next hour or so.


dom

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:18 AM
link   
As far as I'm aware the rules of engagement are still shoot to stop not shoot to kill. BUT where terrorism is suspected armed officers have been told not to aim at the torso, which leaves the head. And that's just that...



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
The BBC are saying that the police had targetted this man and attempted to question him. He ran into the tube station to avoid arrest. He was killed because of the new guidelines regarding police firearms and suicide bombers (headshot preferrably).
It is not overly warm in London today, especially compared to of late. So just because this guy was wearing a coat isn't in itself highly suspicious. The indication being made by the police is that they knew who they were after.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Not trying to hit the paranoia meter,

but when will we start seeing the army on the streets on London? if this is going to become a daily thing, they have be introduce if you think about it cause the police cant cope if this continues.


CX

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by CX
I joined the british army in 1988 and for the entire duration of my service the rules of engagement stated that if someone was about to cause a threat to life, ie plant or explode an IED you were within your rights to kill them.
[edit on 22-7-2005 by CX]


Thanks for this post - you just made me understand what part of this felt really really icky. This was an instance of military rules of engagement in a British civil environment.

Now - before some one gets all miffed about that statement, that's not a jab. That's a point of observation. This instance is an instance of martial law. The only reason we haven't had to see this sad state of affairs here in the U.S. yet is because they haven't started these random suicide bombings. The minute they do - we'll get our own version of the the 21st Century's OK Corral.

We need to invent a Versaid gun - pop a Versaid bullet in the back of their heads where they can't get two more steps before they're in lala land - then we can ask them all the questions we need to when they come out of the coma.


Thanks for that reply, and i certainly won't get miffed over it as it contains some very valid points.

I guess in this day and age and with this sort of threat, this may well be the only way to deal with a suicide bomber until like you say they come up with another method. Must be a real hard call for the armed cop, its not as though you even get a chance for negotiation with a suicide bomber surrounded by members of the public. That will be a major decision to make in a split second.

CX.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:27 AM
link   


Passengers using the New York subway are to be subject to random searches in a new security measure designed to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks.


BBC News

I think this is what we should do.

While I was watching the BBC 1:00 News they reported that the Pakistan president blaimed the UK for being a safe haven for terrorists because of our human rights laws, liberty and free speech. I think we need a radical rethink of our laws.



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
bulls**t. random searches are utter crap. i'm always getting pulled aside for 'random searches'... at airports etc... yeah how about searching someone that might actually be doing something illegal instead of wasting valuable police time. 4.5 million people us the new york subway every day...what's the chances that you'll actually catch someone, and how many people do you exactly need to search, and is this really good use of police time??

yes, i expect we will see the army on the streets soon, swat type teams as well. london's gonna be one huge prison because of the huge # storm tony blair made.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by shaunybaby]


CX

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   
Just heard Fox news saying that it is now understood that the "bomber" is not believed to have had any explosives on him. Should be interesting now!
So many conflicting reports as usual, i think i'll just wait for the news at the end of the day from the people who know!


Personaly i reckon it should be a shooting offence to wear a Puffa jacket in ANY weather!
If the plain clothes guys did'nt get him, the fashion police would have done soon anyway!

Calv



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Pakistan's Pervez Musharraf needs to look in the mirror a bit more often.
Pakistan plays the game of helping in the war on terrorism, and yet, lays the blame at the wrong feet. He needs to look to his own feet.




seekerof



posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
perhaps the police had some sort of intelligence, which is why they were staking out the tube in plain clothes. when they stopped the suspect he ran... what else are the police to do??...tickle his butt with a feather?



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join